tv [untitled] May 12, 2012 5:30pm-6:00pm PDT
there is a high level of local crimes in this area. it is a cornerstone that needs a larger support. whether it is about adding light. i welcome this as a piece of that investment in that city. i want to state that having a substation in the community can have incredible outcomes. we saw this recently when we moved southern station community police advisory board meetings to sixth and folsom street. over 50 residents were attracted by bringing it closer and into the neighborhood. i want to thank the mayor's office for working so diligently on this issue to identify sources of funding. i do want to thank budget committee members for making
suggestions on how we can make a stronger. we want to make sure that sfpd is accountable to the act comes we want to see from this substation which means increased but patrol and reduced production in our data reports in crime in that area. i support an amendment we have a budget committee which will have the committee come back and report to us on increased foot patrols and on the larger question of how effective substation's have been in our neighborhoods and i ask for your support today. supervisor avalos: thank you. i want to support this resolution for the lease on the substation. i did have reservations about it. we have experience of the substation on broad street, broadband capital. there was a bit of confusion on the part of the police
department whether that substation is utilized at all. it is -- basically has a chair and some desks but is not used by the police department. if we're talking about the history, we do not have a lot to sit on. knowing that, there has been a great deal of hope in the community about a greater, more community driven presence on sixth street with the police department. i am supporting -- supportive of this measure. we need more than just the plan say there will be a greater presence of police officers on the street and police officers will be filling out reports in the substation. we have to operational is what our strategy will be along sixth street. last year we supported an ordinance sponsored by supervisor campos looking at how we would make sure we have standards in place about
community policing. that ordinance comes into play about how we do community policing on sixth street. it will be an important mile that we can utilize around the rest of the city. not to say that we need a substation on every street corner, but after having done a lot of work in district 6, when i was legislative aide for supervisor chris daly, there was an outcry about how to create a better sense of safety and a better relationship with the police department on the corridor and that is why wanted to support this resolution for the substation knowing that over $750,000 of general fund money will come to a. i have great needs and all our colleagues have great needs in our district, whether we want to look at policing or community prevention efforts. we have to look at the different needs and look at the strategies that are going to work. this is a strategy the supervisor is proposing for
district 6 and i will be supportive of it for that reason. thank you. president chiu: will take a roll call on this resolution. >> supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. suppressor campos, at alaye. supervisor chu, aye. supervisor chiu, aye. supervisor elsbernd come aye. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. there are 11 aye's. president chiu: item 21. >> ordinance amending the san
francisco planning code. >> this is a simple piece of trailing les legislation. we are trying to create more active and attractive storefronts within the mitch -- bertran district. we passed a piece of legislation that supports businesses and this was concluded in that measure but we are treating it as drilling legislation here. the idea is allowing very basic height exceptions to increase the height to create more active and attractive store fronts but also the inner and outer clement street neighborhood. it is one piece of a group of efforts i am proposing with martin's in my district to revitalize our merchant quarter
-- corridor. it -- support from the office of economic and workforce development. thank you. president chiu: can we take this item same house, same call? without objection, this ordinance is passed on the first reading. madam clerk, could you call items 22 and 23? >> 22 is an ordinance amending the planning code article 10 entitled preservation of historical architectural and ascetic landmarks in its integrity and making findings. 23 is amending the article code 11 entitled preservation of buildings in districts of architectural, and historical, and aesthetic importance in the c-3 district and making findings. supervisor wiener: this is the culmination of years of work to
import preservation in our planning code. during historic districts and landmarks. i want to thank my co-sponsor of this legislation, supervisor olague who has been a great partner in this legislation. i also want to acknowledge tim fry from planning who has put years of work into this. preservation is a very important value in san francisco. we're an historic city with amazing architecture, beautiful neighborhoods, wonderful civic institutions. we must preserve the historic integrity of our city, of architecture, and our institutions. san francisco supports us and so i. i was proud to join the 57% of voters who supported proposition j, to create the historic
preservation commission. you have to take a broader view and that is what this legislation does. it recognizes that while preservation is important, it is one policy goal among various important goals. this is a complex urban world- class city with a divorce population and many different needs -- a diverse population and many different needs. any city must be able to change and adapt. san francisco is a great and historic city but is not a museum. we need a preservation policy that recognizes that. the preservation policy that embraces the best of our past while also embracing our future. a preservation policy that involves the community in decisions about our neighborhoods. the preservation policy that avoids gentrification that -- by acknowledging not everyone is wealthy and there are many property owners with limited means. the preservation policy that
does not attempt to be policy but rather coexist with other key policies like pedestrian safety, having great libraries and parks, and creating affordable housing. preservation policy that understands of rephrase the city in place as some would like to do, some of the more extreme voices, our city will stop being a place where young people come or families form and state and where we improve our quality of life. you only have to look at the north beach library situation to understand the need for balance. an effort to kill usable family oriented library and park in the name of preservation. where the efforts to kill pedestrians safety implements -- improvements in the name of preservation. this is a look -- modest in limited effort to move is in the right direction and to be very clear, despite the at times
melodramatic campaign of recent days to cast this legislation as radical and undermining preservation, the opposite is true. we have heard a lot of different pieces of misinformation recently. that this will cause the demolition of rent-controlled buildings, not true. that this will cause us to lose our certified local government debt is for receiving federal affordable housing money, not true. that this will violates ceqa, not true. that this will somehow prevent the formation of cultural districts, that is not true and we're working on this issue. this will allow changes to occur at landmarks in districts without approval by the hpc, this is also untrue. this is carefully cat -- crafted legislation that has been put together with many stakeholders and the planning staff and historic preservation commission working with san francisco architectural heritage and by
defense and the state historic preservation office and many others. the planning commission in massively -- unanimously approved this legislation. i want to go over the key aspects of this proposal and there are many others that are highly uncontroversial. each and every one of the proposals i have made as part of this legislation has been heavily negotiated and we have compromised. i will not draw lines in the sand. we worked -- i spent hours at the hpc, at the planning commission, at staff and heritage. we made a lot of changes and compromise. this is important legislation and it is important to listen and respond. what are the key things? first, there will be balloting of residents, property owners, tenants of the district to see
whether the people who live and who own property in the district actually support the district. to see whether there is community by dan -- buy-in. once the survey is done, the results return or to the board of supervisors for consideration. they're not binding in any way. the board of supervisors and our legislative judgment can decide whether or not to legislate the district. it is very useful information for us as policymakers to have to know whether there is support for the creation of the district. now, some have said that because we do not vote on zoning issues, why would we create -- vote on creation of a district? the two are very different. the creation of a historic district has immediate impact on people's ability to control their property.
immediately provides a different system of approval. it immediately imposes standards that exist -- that did not exist before. the zoning does not do that. this legislation also creates an economic hardship provision, understanding that not all property owners are wealthy. it requires that it sold -- if there is an economic hardship, planning has to work with them to find a less expensive way. it does not give them a free pass, it requires flexibility. it requires that sidewalks that are not integral to the biz -- district do not have to go through the preservation prospect to do pedestrian safety projects. it requires that we formalize our local interpretations to the secretary of interior standards. these are to be approved by the planning commission and the historic preservation commission.
i want to briefly touch on the process leading up to this because there have been some who have raised questions. i have never been involved in legislation with as much process as this legislation. there were 25 hearings on the legislation before it came to this board, 21 at the historic preservation commission and four at the planning commission. we had a land use hearing. this legislation was introduced more than a month ago. we have made some corrections, typographical errors, we made a few minor amendments at the land use committee. today, i do have several amendments that are non- substantive and not -- will not require a continuance and want to thank supervisor salahi and president chiu for working on these -- supervisor olague adn presidennd president chiu.
it would make clear that any member of the public could come forward and requests that the historic preservation commission initiate a [inaudible] there are some that would like the -- any member of the public to nominate a district. tthhe hpc would have to hold a hearing. it is not -- i do not think it is appropriate to force the hpc to evaluate and hold a hearing. this would clarify everyone's first amendment rights to come forward and make that request. the section would read, the department, property owners, or any member of the public may request a that thehpc initiate
designation of a landmark site or destroyed. when a nomination is submitted or majority of property owners of a proposed historic district, the nomination must be considered by the age pc -- hpc. rishaad be in the form described and contain documentation as well as any additional information the hpc shall require. it will hold a hearing not later than 45 days from the receipt of the nomination request. the second of the three amendments clarifies for the provision that affordable housing projects will be entitled to special consideration in terms of reducing costs and clarifies that at least 80% of the units in the project have to be subsidized. on page 31, line 15 of section
1,006.6, the phrase "and where at least 8% of the units are subsidized" will be inserted after the phrase "providing a subsidized or rental housing unit." the final changes in section 1107, page 17, line 25. the word residential will be inserted before the word occupants to make sure that when the voting survey is done in downtown, the survey will be done of property owners and residential tenants and not of the commercial tenants. those are the three -- and the word residential will be included on page 18, line four. those are the three amendments
that in supervisor olague and president chiu are supporting. i would be honored to have your support. >> is there a second? seconded by president chiu. the motion has been made. supervisor avalos, to the amendments. supervisor avalos: thank you. just on the discussion about subsidized housing, that is rented or for sale, i believe when we talk about subsidies, there are lots of different kinds of subsidies. 80% of the units receive a subsidy does not quite get to the point of what kind of subsidy it is. i would be more comfortable supporting such language if it
were to refer to -- that we subsidize affordable housing in san francisco. subsidizing residents who are earning up to a server -- up to a certain amount. i would like to propose you could offer the amendment to the second amendment that could address that issue. there could be, for instance, a tax break that could be considered a subsidy. there could be different ways that subsidies could be applied. i would like to suggest that if you want to say 80% of the units whether it is a subsidy of to a certain percentage of the area median income, i would say 80%, perhaps 8% of the units -- 80% of the units subsidized up to 80%.
anything up to 80% of area median income would be eligible for the exemption. >> is there a second? seconded by supervisor campos. we need to discuss the amendment to the amendment. supervisor cohen, to the amendment of the amendment, no. supervisor wiener, supervisor mar. supervisor mar: i do not know if there is precise language, to the chair. the proposed amendment would eliminate all moderate middle and come subsidized housing. it would limit it to low-income housing. as a result, i cannot support
that. when you talk about housing that is receiving government subsidies for subsidized units, that encompasses very low, low, and moderate income housing. i am not aware of subsidies for anything above moderate income housing. limiting to low income is a problem, especially given our need for moderate income housing in the city as well, so i will be voting against this. >> to the amendment? supervisor cohen: to the chair, i have a question for supervisor avalos. i was curious if there was a reason why you selected 80 or would you be open to 120 or another level? i wanted clarification around
80. supervisor avalos: i selected 80 where we set the level for affordability. i am willing to select a higher number. i would not want to go, 100% ami would be adequate. if you'd like to make a friendly amendment, i would welcome that. >> perhaps if you would like to withdraw your amendment and restate your amendment? >supervisor avalos: i will withdraw my amendment to and offer up to 100% of area median income.
i will state what the language could look like. for applications pertaining to rent -- this is section 1,006.6 h. pertaining to applications that are receiving a direct financial contribution or sources for providing a wholesale rental unit for residents earning 80% -- 100% area median income and below would be the language. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor -- seconded. supervisor olague: the affordability is 100 from --
120% from ami. workers who go through the below market rate housing program fall within the 120% and below of the ami for that. that is kind of standard. it had set 120 and goes down from there. i did not know if that is something you would consider again or not but i wanted to put that out there. supervisor kim: when we inquired, we subsidize at 100% ami currently. i am willing to support 120%. >> let me propose a question. we have a downpayment assistance loan program. it is for people buying property for the very first time. i am not sure what percentage that is. if that is a place for we could
draw the line, if it is 120, i am willing to accept it. if it is 100 -- >> we can find that? -- fund that? >> i see no one here who is willing to confirm that. supervisor wiener: thank you. for future reference, since this amendment was not brought to my attention until the motion was made on the floor, we probably could have confirmed all of that beforehand. not exactly the best way to do legislation. with that said, i do think if we put it at 120 comment that would be -- 120, that would be fine. i cannot imagine a scenario will be will have subsidized housing
that is subsidized above 120%. i would feel comfortable if we did it at 120%. that would include the entire moderate income housing. >> 100% right now. until i hear back from the mayor's office, i think that makes a lot of sense. i do not know if there is any prohibition against making any amendments. this is a complex piece of legislation. i think we have a room -- a lot of room to make an amendment. >> colleagues, as i understand it, this was an amendment to the second one. why don't we put that to the side and discuss amendments 1 and 3? are there any discussions on those two amendments?
president chiu: i want to thank all the folks who have worked for many years on this legislation. i want to thank supervisor wiener. given how many changes have happened to this, there was a desire -- i appreciate your willingness to move forward it with the amendments that you have suggested, which i do support. just to -- the question has been asked by one or two of our colleagues, the san francisco heritage yesterday had circulated a letter to all of us that had raised several issues. i believe these amendments address two of these three issues. one in its entirety around allowing members of the public to it initiate -- request a designation. this amendment totally addresses that issue.
the other issue was around the motion of the so-called mandatory written vote. i want to mentioned a couple of things. i do not read it to be a mandatory written a vote. it reads to be a goal that is established in the legislation, a good faith 50% goal. as we have all heard a lot of folks on both sides of this question, we received a letter today from the did that when a to have a harder, stricter mandatory rule for reasons that they laid out in their letter. that being said, i do think the amendment that we have discussed to take out a category of occupancy that would be required to be part of any vote makes sense, particularly in the c3 district. it makes sense to reach out to
property owners as well as residential occupants, but the need for commercial occupancy and reaching out to them was -- i think it is not -- the reason is not as compelling. i support the amendment to take out the need for outreach to that particular class of occupancy. -- occupancy. it was raised by members of the hps as to how we define housing. i do hope we can find some resolution shortly on this issue of 100% versus 120% ami. the folks that we could be exempting here are the ones who are